About your Search

20121112
20121120
Search Results 0 to 3 of about 4 (some duplicates have been removed)
was it, 1982 or 1983, back in the 1980's, tip o'neill and ronald reagan got together and made adjustments to social security that saved the program. that's my point. sometimes you need to adjust and change to save the very thing you care most about. and so tip o'neill didn't sell out the democratic party by embracing that agreement. the democrats in congress, many of them very progressive at that time who supported it, didn't work traders to the party. if we do it in a responsible way, a balanced and doesn't just gut the programs and just not all entitlement reform with no revenue, i think the base of the party and leaders and organized labor will understand. they also know the alternative is doing nothing, with bad damage to jobs and the economy. and ultimately insolvency of these programs themselves, or. b, the right wing of the republicans are coming in and taking over because we have done nothing to solve the problem and their answer to the solution would be much more draconian. host: jack. he's our first phone call for the senator. republican. go ahead. caller: mr. bayh, one question
. there is that incentive as well. you have to look at ronald reagan as well as henry kissinger, when they went into negotiations, said you have to come willing to truly cut a deal. you may get 90%. >> takes both sides. obama is very good in liberal rhetoric blaming republicans. even in "l.a. times", obama wants to help the middle class but republicans don't want to give everything to the rich which is not true. and a lot of liberals are saying this was a mandate to raise taxes? i think people can be pro-choice, pro-day marriage and have fiscal responsibility and live within their means. jon: well, i mean to be honest, angela, the president campaigned on a platform saying i'm going to go back to the bill clinton tax rates and the wealthiest are going to have to pay more money and he won. >> but bill clinton worked with a republican congress and our economy was not in dire straits that it is right now. so if he really wants to go back to the bill clinton days he should go to the table and work with republicans. >> also you have to look taxes were historical high. one of the things they're talkin
been pro-immigration. ronald reagan was solidly for immigration reform, and if you go to youtube and google reagan-mondale debate, reagan making the case not for legalization, but for amnesty. using that word. now, republicans are pro-immigration, but they have been afraid for the past six years of anti-immigration lobby with an incredible political machine, and anybody who says anything constructive on immigration will be labeled pro-amnesty, and certainly, some talk show hosts, and now, i think this election cycle dramatically changed that. i can, at least, number half a dozen talk shows that said, you know what? my position evolved, and now i'm for immigration reform, but that is good because it will give cover to a lot of republicans who have avoided the issue or want to deal with the issue to actually do it so we have to reclaim the issue, and we can do it because immigration and being for immigration reform is actually the conservative position. restrictionists at the end is part of the nationalist, protectionist paradigm, and if we are the party of the family, if we ar
Search Results 0 to 3 of about 4 (some duplicates have been removed)